Mec President Resigns Early

[EyeInTheSky]

Was the slam against the city of Charlotte necessary, Eye?

[post="293514"][/post]​

Gee, it was just a joke. Lighten up..

P.S. What's up with the cat abuse avtar? That's one mad pussy...

 

[StewGuy86]

P.S.  What's up with the cat abuse avtar?  That's one mad pussy...

[post="293521"][/post]​

No kitties were harmed in the making of this picture.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

No kitties were harmed in the making of this picture.

[post="293523"][/post]​

My pussy is bigger than your pussy...

 

[PITbull]

Like I said Dio, If they can't win an internet debate How in the Heck are they gonna beat the likes of Jerry Glass?

Dio, I'll wager you two bottles of the finest Belgain Ale I have in my home that the current LEC/MECP has our MS Xidas on the phone after she is gone on December 2nd the very first time Jerry Glass backs them into a corner with his bully boy tactics.

[post="293313"][/post]​

That's already occuring B)

 

[EyeInTheSky]

That's already occuring B)

[post="293527"][/post]​

Gosh. You know after December 2, Ms. Xidas should be hired on as a consultant to AFA. Probably the best use of union dues ever; not like porn and parking tickets, aye?

 

[StewGuy86]

My pussy is bigger than your pussy...

[post="293526"][/post]​

I....uh...um....okay.

 

[N109UW]

Gee, it was just a joke. Lighten up..

P.S. What's up with the cat abuse avtar? That's one mad pussy...

[post="293521"][/post]​

You sound just like that AVTAR. Just a joke. My bad. Lighten up.

 

[sharkstooth]

Not logical.

U is a publically traded company (well, until the Palace ran it into BK - twice!) selling services to the public.

U is accountable to agencies (FAA, DOT, SEC, etc.) that act on the public's behalf.

Seems to me the public has a say.

If you want it to be private, pony up the $$$$'s and take it private.

[post="292771"][/post]​

Dio,

Under BK, the company is hardly "accountable" to shareholders. Rather, it is accountable to the judge.

And, private or not, the company is accountable to federal agencies.

Your namesake must be spinning....

 

[sharkstooth]

To your point 3.

This fandango was "armed" when Teddy, on receiving the letter from JG months ago, did not disclose this to the MEC.

It was initiated when Teddy refused to disclose this letter to the MEC last week.

Teddy had every opportunity to nail JG, yet refused. Why? her behavior suggests she was indeed complicit with the contents of the letter.

Point 4.

Why would JG allow a situation to develop that will likely destroy any career he had? Unless we end up shooting ourselves in the foot, he is gone, forever.

"As Teddy didn't accept the deal,....."

Both the AFA C&bLs and DOL laws _demand_ disclosure. It matters not whether she accepted or not, she had a duty to disclose to the entire MEC.

I understand from the posts that she was given every opportunity to disclose yet she refused.

"No HR disclosures about the ones that played ball, are there?"

Care to make that statement more clear with specifics? Would you like to share?

 

[sharkstooth]

You are so keen on the issue of Teddy and disclosure.

Yet I have not seen you call for the PHL LEC to disclose who leaked personal information to her.

I have not seen you ask why, when the PHL LEC received this information, did not follow AFA bylaws and call for an internal union review - surely Teddy was owed professional treatment.

You seem to have no curiosity as to whether there is any collusion between the company and the current union leadership.

This raises the real possibility you are biased.

When you come on this board, you are playing with folks from a variety of professional backgrounds, and they can smell BS a mile off.

Last point.

In another post, you alleged another poster let their bias, regardless of any fact, influence their post.

Pot, meet kettle.

[post="293240"][/post]​

Hey, Dio.

"Yet I have not seen you call for the PHL LEC to disclose who leaked personal information to her."

Do you doubt the veracity of the letter from JG? Apparently, Teddy does not.

"I have not seen you ask why, when the PHL LEC received this information, did not follow AFA bylaws and call for an internal union review - surely Teddy was owed professional treatment."

Um, you must have missed it. I believe several posters stated that Friend turned down an investigation.

Did you also miss the part where Teddy was offered the opportunity to make everything right through disclosure? Why did she refuse such an offer?

"You seem to have no curiosity as to whether there is any collusion between the company and the current union leadership."

Am I on the wrong thread? Isn't that what this thread is all about?

"In another post, you alleged another poster let their bias, regardless of any fact, influence their post."

It would be great were you to start dealing in facts, also.

 

[700UW]

That is funny the members of the MEC were notified of it, but since these are new members they did not know.

And in bankrupcty the major shareholders are usually stakeholders and some of them might be in the creditors committee, the company is still responsible for answering to all parties.

 

[PITbull]

To your point 3.

This fandango was "armed" when Teddy, on receiving the letter from JG months ago, did not disclose this to the MEC.

It was initiated when Teddy refused to disclose this letter to the MEC last week.

Teddy had every opportunity to nail JG, yet refused.  Why?  her behavior suggests she was indeed complicit with the contents of the letter.

Point 4.

Why would JG allow a situation to develop that will likely destroy any career he had?  Unless we end up shooting ourselves in the foot, he is gone, forever.

"As Teddy didn't accept the deal,....."

Both the AFA C&bLs and DOL laws _demand_ disclosure.  It matters not whether she accepted or not, she had a duty to disclose to the entire MEC.

I understand from the posts that she was given every opportunity to disclose yet she refused.

"No HR disclosures about the ones that played ball, are there?"

Care to make that statement more clear with specifics?  Would you like to share?

[post="293610"][/post]​

Hey tooth,

Don't you have some pilot business to attend to. I think your on the wrong thread.

Your information is totally inaccurate. There was FULL DISCLOSURE , accept on your end. There was no opportunity to refuse disclosure as it was already disclosed by Terry Graf....I think you need to turn around and ask her.

Obviously you don't read the MEC E-lines.

Mistake #1.

 

[diogenes]

Dio,

Under BK, the company is hardly "accountable" to shareholders. Rather, it is accountable to the judge.

And, private or not, the company is accountable to federal agencies.

Your namesake must be spinning....

[post="293604"][/post]​

Prior to BK, and upon emergence, U will be a public company. Anybody can buy shares. Any shareholder can attend the annual shareholder's conference. Any shareholder can address the BOD - if not at the meeting, then in writing. If you re-read carefully, you will note I excepted BK, where management escapes their fiduciary obligations to the shareholders.

A private company does NOT have to make the same disclosures to the SEC a public company does, and no government agency has the same insight into the financial workings of a private company as they do a public one.

My namesake is fine. Is yours toothless?

 

[diogenes]

To your point 3.

This fandango was "armed" when Teddy, on receiving the letter from JG months ago, did not disclose this to the MEC.

It was initiated when Teddy refused to disclose this letter to the MEC last week.

Teddy had every opportunity to nail JG, yet refused.  Why?  her behavior suggests she was indeed complicit with the contents of the letter.

Point 4.

Why would JG allow a situation to develop that will likely destroy any career he had?  Unless we end up shooting ourselves in the foot, he is gone, forever.

"As Teddy didn't accept the deal,....."

Both the AFA C&bLs and DOL laws _demand_ disclosure.  It matters not whether she accepted or not, she had a duty to disclose to the entire MEC.

I understand from the posts that she was given every opportunity to disclose yet she refused.

"No HR disclosures about the ones that played ball, are there?"

Care to make that statement more clear with specifics?  Would you like to share?

[post="293610"][/post]​

Points 3 and 4 inter-relate on the issue of disclosure. There are those who say she did; you and others say she didn't.

Immaterial.

The sitting MEC at the time knows the truth, and can speak it.

Would you agree that would resolve this matter?

It seems apparent the company provided personal information to someone other than that person (unless you are going to argue Teddy leaked the document). Isn't that a no-no?

Who? Why? When?

As there are major negotiations going forward, doesn't the membership have a right to know?

 

[ClueByFour]

Both the AFA C&bLs and DOL laws _demand_ disclosure.

[post="293610"][/post]​

Please cite the "DOL Laws."